Deepfake false memories
Abstract
Machine-learning has enabled the creation of “deepfake videos”; highly-realistic footage that features a person saying or doing something they never did. In recent years, this technology has become more widespread and various apps now allow an average social-media user to create a deepfake video which can be shared online. There are concerns about how this may distort memory for public events, but to date no evidence to support this. Across two experiments, we presented participants (N = 682) with fake news stories in the format of text, text with a photograph or text with a deepfake video. Though participants rated the deepfake videos as convincing, dangerous, and unethical, and some participants did report false memories after viewing deepfakes, the deepfake video format did not consistently increase false memory rates relative to the text-only or text-with-photograph conditions. Further research is needed, but the current findings suggest that while deepfake videos can distort memory for public events, they may not always be more effective than simple misleading text.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People are not more likely to report false memories after watching deepfake videos than reading the same false news as text.
“researchers find people are not more likely to report false memories after watching deepfake videos than reading the same false news as text34”
From Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
Cites
Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000465 · Cited by 1,268 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In real-world settings, individuals might see the same story multiple times, which might increase perceived truthfulness ( “ illusory truth e ff ect ” , Pennycook et al., 2018).”
BackgroundVaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120903408 · Cited by 978 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Indeed, much of the literature on deepfake technology is centred on the potentially harmful e ff ects of these doctored videos on privacy, democracy and trust in institutions (Ajder et al., 2019; Chesney & Citron, 2019; Vaccari & Chadwick, 2020).”
BackgroundAre people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817724170 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Maras, M.-H., & Alexandrou, A. (2019) · The International Journal of Evidence & Proof · doi:10.1177/1365712718807226 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video
Groh, M., Sankaranarayanan, A., Singh, N., Kim, D. Y., Lippman, A., & Picard, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51998-z · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Deepfakes and Society: What Lies Ahead?
Gamage, D., Chen, J., Ghasiya, P., & Sasahara, K. (2022) · Studies in Autonomic, Data-driven and Industrial Computing · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-1524-6_1 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Understanding Autobiographical Memory in the Digital Age: The AMEDIA-Model
Hutmacher, F., Appel, M., & Schwan, S. (2024) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2024.2384125 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Murphy, G., & Flynn, E.
- Affiliations
- University College Cork (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Murphy, Gillian
- ORCID
- Murphy, Gillian
- Venue
- Memory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-04-28
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 480-492
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- OpenAlex
- W3155057772
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 15.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Memory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Keywords
- deepfakes, false memory, fake news, memory distortion, perceived credibility, ethics of deepfakes, misinformation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
